Birmingham Speedway

[Teromaafan]

7 hours ago, orion said:

 You have no idea in Poland if sponsors tv etc come on board because of  no guests etc . Guests in fact and a much better that having to replace heat leaders  with no hopers like they do in Poland  .. Do you really think if Poland had guests and Uk never someone we would be  have the massive crowds and Poland would not ..The polish play off final two seasons ago when one team had all its heat leaders and replaced with Charles Wright etc and that allowed the most sided final over lwo legs  was of the worst things i had even see sport it was complete Joke .. That was like Usain Bolt getting into the  Olympic final  and then having  to start 50 yards behind .

 

Guests have always been part and parcel of the sport since I first followed it over 50 years ago. I don’t like it, but I’ve come to accept it. I lost touch with speedway in the years that Leicester were closed, but when I got back into the sport (2011), I was shocked at the amount of doubling up. This to me destroys the credibility of the sport in the UK more than the guest system. It’s got to the stage where any talked about single league (i.e no doubling up) looks impossible without a large influx of riders (from where?) which also impacts the earning potential of existing riders due to reduced numbers of meetings.

[orion]

4 hours ago, Teromaafan said:

Guests have always been part and parcel of the sport since I first followed it over 50 years ago. I don’t like it, but I’ve come to accept it. I lost touch with speedway in the years that Leicester were closed, but when I got back into the sport (2011), I was shocked at the amount of doubling up. This to me destroys the credibility of the sport in the UK more than the guest system. It’s got to the stage where any talked about single league (i.e no doubling up) looks impossible without a large influx of riders (from where?) which also impacts the earning potential of existing riders due to reduced numbers of 

Crowds have dropped as the standard of rider and team strengths have got weaker it's pretty simple..If we had all the top riders here no one would care about guests and the crowds would be bigger  . .Do people really think if we stopped using  guests fans  are going to start  flocking back..of course they won't.

Edited May 31, 2025 by orion

[Teromaafan]

46 minutes ago, orion said:

Crowds have dropped as the standard of rider and team strengths have got weaker it's pretty simple..If we had all the top riders here no one would care about guests and the crowds would be bigger  . .Do people really think if we stopped using  guests fans  are going to stop flocking back..of course they won't.

If rider and team strengths were more evenly balanced, rider standards become less relevant. Doing away with the guest system would sadly make the situation worse. When your GP standard No.1 gets injured, replacing him with your club junior is not going to work is it?

[szkocjasid]

I see Birmingham's facility for MJJ has been extended. I have to admit what's the point of giving a 14 day facility then extending it, why not give a 28 day facility to start with. If there is a reason for the 14 day facility, that's fine - just don't extend it then!

[IainB]

27 minutes ago, szkocjasid said:

I see Birmingham's facility for MJJ has been extended. I have to admit what's the point of giving a 14 day facility then extending it, why not give a 28 day facility to start with. If there is a reason for the 14 day facility, that's fine - just don't extend it then!

I've heard it suggested that they only got 14 days because MJJ wasn't withholding his services, his contract just expired. I also assume that's why MJJ hasn't been issued a 28 day ban. The SCB have been awfully quiet this year, probably still recovering from all their admin of last year. 

[PersonalResponsibility]

I don't think there's ever been a case of "ah, just give them a facility and let them get on with it" than this. I can see it being extended until the end of the season - standard season, Birmingham's ended months ago sadly - unless Brum want to replace MJJ.

[GiveusaB]

Its easier to extend it as opposed to watch B'ham fold before the season ends!

Besides they need to keep Tolley sweet in preparation for his takeover at Sheffield next season!

[Teromaafan]

3 minutes ago, GiveusaB said:

Its easier to extend it as opposed to watch B'ham fold before the season ends!

Besides they need to keep Tolley sweet in preparation for his takeover at Sheffield next season!

Will the Bates family still be involved or are they selling up?

[GiveusaB]

Haven't a clue...I'm just reading between the lines!

[*JJ]

3 minutes ago, GiveusaB said:

Haven't a clue...

Only too true.

[IainB]

1 hour ago, Teromaafan said:

Will the Bates family still be involved or are they selling up?

Julie Reading left earlier in the year

[GiveusaB]

56 minutes ago, *JJ said:

Only too true.

May be he should ask you, the one that pretends to know it all....

What does the 'J' stand for in your initial ?

Is it 'JOKER'!?

[szkocjasid]

10 hours ago, IainB said:

I've heard it suggested that they only got 14 days because MJJ wasn't withholding his services, his contract just expired. I also assume that's why MJJ hasn't been issued a 28 day ban. The SCB have been awfully quiet this year, probably still recovering from all their admin of last year. 

If that's the case facility shouldn't be extended.

[szkocjasid]

2 hours ago, GiveusaB said:

Its easier to extend it as opposed to watch B'ham fold before the season ends!

Besides they need to keep Tolley sweet in preparation for his takeover at Sheffield next season!

It would be a shame to see Birmingham struggle (more than they already are) but they shouldn't "invent" rules mid-season to keep them competitive, when year after year they pick awful teams.

If the league knew teams would struggle, then should have made a lower limit, allowing Oxford & Birmingham to be more competitive, rather than "gifting" them an underserved facility.

However Birmingham were only given a 75% facility for Zagar & effectively replaced him with Hume till he returned. So if Brummies riding under strength then wasn't a threat to them finishing the season, why would it be now?

Edit: I've just realised I'm looking for logic & consistency in decisions made by the BSPL. That probably answers my question lol!

Edited June 2, 2025 by szkocjasid

[Teromaafan]

12 minutes ago, szkocjasid said:

It would be a shame to see Birmingham struggle (more than they already are) but they shouldn't "invent" rules mid-season to keep them competitive, when year after year they pick awful teams.

If the league knew teams would struggle, then should have made a lower limit, allowing Oxford & Birmingham to be more competitive, rather than "gifting" them an underserved facility.

However Birmingham were only given a 75% facility for Zagar & effectively replaced him with Hume till he returned. So if Brummies riding under strength then wasn't a threat to them finishing the season, why would it be now?

Edit: I've just realised I'm looking for logic & consistency in decisions made by the BSPL. That probably answers my question lol!

Do you realise that you’ve used ‘logic’& ‘BSPL’ in the same sentence.😂

[SpeedwaySlider72]

45 minutes ago, szkocjasid said:

It would be a shame to see Birmingham struggle (more than they already are) but they shouldn't "invent" rules mid-season to keep them competitive, when year after year they pick awful teams.

If the league knew teams would struggle, then should have made a lower limit, allowing Oxford & Birmingham to be more competitive, rather than "gifting" them an underserved facility.

However Birmingham were only given a 75% facility for Zagar & effectively replaced him with Hume till he returned. So if Brummies riding under strength then wasn't a threat to them finishing the season, why would it be now?

Edit: I've just realised I'm looking for logic & consistency in decisions made by the BSPL. That probably answers my question lol!

It is the Speedway Control Bureau that dish out the facilities not BSPL

[LagutaRacingFan]

1 hour ago, szkocjasid said:

It would be a shame to see Birmingham struggle (more than they already are) but they shouldn't "invent" rules mid-season to keep them competitive, when year after year they pick awful teams.

If the league knew teams would struggle, then should have made a lower limit, allowing Oxford & Birmingham to be more competitive, rather than "gifting" them an underserved facility.

However Birmingham were only given a 75% facility for Zagar & effectively replaced him with Hume till he returned. So if Brummies riding under strength then wasn't a threat to them finishing the season, why would it be now?

Edit: I've just realised I'm looking for logic & consistency in decisions made by the BSPL. That probably answers my question lol!

Fairly certain Sheffield got a facility for Woffinden.

Don't the rules say you can't have a facility for a rider who hasn't ridden for you.

[GiveusaB]

I think its difficult to have a debate about BSPL rules and regs....the sport's on its knees in this country and there never seems to be any logic to most decisions that come from a bunch of boring old farts who don't have a clue of how to bring the sport forward.....

It's sad to see B'ham fold again, but I've lost interest in paying to watch it anymore!

Might be different if I was a BV fan and was treated to half a dozen exciting races per meeting?

Really hope that when the new Coventry stadium emerges, they give serious thought to a decent race track....although I think the stock cars will ruin it.

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, szkocjasid said:

It would be a shame to see Birmingham struggle (more than they already are) but they shouldn't "invent" rules mid-season to keep them competitive, when year after year they pick awful teams.

If the league knew teams would struggle, then should have made a lower limit, allowing Oxford & Birmingham to be more competitive, rather than "gifting" them an underserved facility.

However Birmingham were only given a 75% facility for Zagar & effectively replaced him with Hume till he returned. So if Brummies riding under strength then wasn't a threat to them finishing the season, why would it be now?

Edit: I've just realised I'm looking for logic & consistency in decisions made by the BSPL. That probably answers my question lol!

It is simply yet another "sticking plaster" which gets used ad nauseum to either get a meeting on, or get a team to not disappear before the season ends...

These "sticking plasters" have become more and more used in the past decade as the clear fundamental flaws in the plan for each season starts to naturally unravel....

This constant "making it up as you go along",  speaks volumes as to how much even those who compete in the competition's don't take them too seriously...

One of then will "win" at the end of the season, but it is clear that far more important than winning something with delivers such small publicity, kudos, and rewards, is that all make it to the end of the season...

With "survival" taking on such importance, it is not a great position with which to try and grow your sport....

Birmingham would have been better off running Mondays in Div 2, using all those same contrived ad hoc rules as and when required, to put decent, competitive teams out when their riders were riding in a Div 1 match...

[arnieg]

5 hours ago, PersonalResponsibility said:

I don't think there's ever been a case of "ah, just give them a facility and let them get on with it" than this. I can see it being extended until the end of the season - standard season, Birmingham's ended months ago sadly - unless Brum want to replace MJJ.

How about Exeter in 1984 and Ivan Mauger's away guest facility